mikeyswood
Inactive
You know- that mid-hump that we are all searching for. I like to use a drop of blinker fluid in the finish since it will be the toniest of all.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Tone Junkies!
- Thread starter WildTrkey
- Start date
For years now people have been trying to reproduce the sound of Stradivari violins- unsuccessfully. They've used identical construction techniques, the same species of wood, the same varnish. They've replicated just about everything except the tone. What they think the exceptional sound came from is the fact that the logs used in the construction of these violins sat in the river for extended periods of time and this gave the wood some unique characteristics...but that's just a guess as well. I used to think that the sound difference would not be noticeable to someone who is unfamiliar with violins until I had a chance to hear a violin virtuoso (Vadim Repin) play 2 violins back to back...a Stradivari and a lesser violin from the same period. I could tell the difference immediately. I was asked if I knew which one sounded better without knowing which was which, and of course the one i chose was the Stradivari. There was just something about it, a subtle change in tone that made all the difference in the world. The point of this long winded post is that these subtle differences make all the difference in the world. Granted a bass guitar is not the same as a violin, electronics play a significant role in tone, but the principle is the same. Usually the difference between a good bass and a great bass is the wood. Anyone can put great electronics in any bass. However, throwing expensive pickups/pre-amps in a $200 Indonesian popcorn bass will usually leave you wanting more ( I know from experience ). Start with the wood, the rest is interchangeable.
This is not to say that expensive/exotic wood = great tone. The price of wood has nothing to do with it's tonal characteristics, it's about supply and demand. Most of the most sought after basses in the world are made from hunks of ash or alder with a maple neck. The electronics are usually pretty simple as well.
This is not to say that expensive/exotic wood = great tone. The price of wood has nothing to do with it's tonal characteristics, it's about supply and demand. Most of the most sought after basses in the world are made from hunks of ash or alder with a maple neck. The electronics are usually pretty simple as well.
Not to be a dick, but the major flaw in the logic expressed above is that a violin is an acoustic instrument. Wood makes a discernible difference in an acoustic instrument due to the fact that it resonates to produce the sound. In a solidbody instrument, the sound is produced by the strings and electronics. Its not that the wood doesn't matter at all, its just that the difference is negligible and nearly impossible to discern compared to the differences imparted due to electronics...
Yes yes yes. I've heard this many times. I will ignore your dickitude, please ignore mine
Yes, a violin is acoustic. Basses and violins are both stringed instruments however. They both make sound by vibrating a string. How the wood resonates affects how the string vibrates. I think everyone agrees that electronics make a huge difference, I don't think anyone has said it doesn't. If you are trying to achieve a particular tone, start with the wood. If you're going for a 70's Jazz bass sound, you wouldn't use basswood now would you? If you were trying to create your own distinct tone, you would use a unique combination of wood, shape, electronics and pickup placement. The electronics argument makes more sense when you are using true active pickups (not passive with pre-amp) such as EMGs. EMGs sound the same on every bass because they only pick up a small fraction of the vibration of the string and then amplify it internally. Passive pickups are different story though.BTW, I am extremely stubborn. I will not stop rambling on about this until everyone in the world agrees with me- because I am always right
mikeyswood
Inactive
The "vintage" electric bass sound has more to do with the oxidation and condition of the copper within the coils than anything else. You could put PAFs in a new guitar made of plywood and fool listeners.
Actually, what is referred to as "vintage" tone was made WHEN THE ELECTRONICS WERE NEW! (excuse the caps)
One could easily achieve true "vintage" tone by using pickups that utilize the same materials and are produced the same way. That's why there should be: Vintage Tone II.
Vintage Tone II can be the sounds produced by actual vintage (which actually don't produce vintage tone) pickups and/or those subjected to relicing. Of course, the wood would have no bearing on any of this whatsoever.
Actually, what is referred to as "vintage" tone was made WHEN THE ELECTRONICS WERE NEW! (excuse the caps)
One could easily achieve true "vintage" tone by using pickups that utilize the same materials and are produced the same way. That's why there should be: Vintage Tone II.
Vintage Tone II can be the sounds produced by actual vintage (which actually don't produce vintage tone) pickups and/or those subjected to relicing. Of course, the wood would have no bearing on any of this whatsoever.
Well put (except for the wood part), Thanks Turkey
mikeyswood
Inactive
Do you mean the third Tone War of '09 or TWIII during '09?
I am pretty sure that TWIII was earlier this year. Perhaps the vets of TWI and TWII can help out with their war stories.
I am pretty sure that TWIII was earlier this year. Perhaps the vets of TWI and TWII can help out with their war stories.
Or what's left of the vets... yea perhaps this is the same tone war 3 that's been going on all year, its like a never ending tone war. We should just call it Tone war '09, anyhow, lets end the '09 war with a riot !!
Well if this is Tone Wars, those who appreciate the effect wood has on tone are the Jedi Knights...we are wise and appreciate the subtleties of the force. We do not take the quick and easy path to power with electronics. Ever notice how Darth Vader's chest plate looks like an on-board preamp? Though I do give him props for having a red light saber. Red is bestest.
If that's the case, I've recently switched over to the dark side...I used to WANT the woods to make a difference, its a cool thing to belive that wood affects tone. However, after getting a bass that, on paper, should sound like "x" woods, it sounds like "y" woods. Its a handmade bass, thin nitro finish, so the wood should speak well. Still though, no dice.
You guys know how to settle this whole thing, right? Send it to Mythbusters and they'll get all scientific on it. That'll do it. Yeah.
Here is where I have a problem with the argument that many use against the "wood makes a difference" crowd:
The question is not whether or not the human brain is able to effectively hear, remember, and categorize the differences between woods. It is simply whether or not there is a discernible difference between them. So your experiment could still be double-blind, multiple takes, etc., but it should be something more like this...
One set which is two otherwise identical instruments, the only difference being wood.
Another set of two identical instruments, including wood.
Randomly play the sets for different people and have them answer whether they thought the instruments were made of the same or different wood.
This idea of "can someone blindly listen to an instrument and tell you if it's made of alder, ash, walnut, etc.?" requires not only that the woods sound different, but also that the listener can remember the sound of each so well that they can recall it at a later time. So the first could be true and the second not so, but that doesn't mean maple vs. rosewood doesn't make a difference.
I'm not advocating one view over the other (personally, I believe wood DOES make a difference... each and every component has the potential to affect tone... but not NEARLY the difference that technique, strings, pickups, electronics, effects, amp, and cab make), it just irritates me when I see people tout the idea that if you can't correctly identify a mahogany bass vs. a walnut bass, that that means the woods don't impact the sound. It should be can you correctly detect a difference in tone when there is a difference in wood (regardless of whether or not you can identify the wood).
The question is not whether or not the human brain is able to effectively hear, remember, and categorize the differences between woods. It is simply whether or not there is a discernible difference between them. So your experiment could still be double-blind, multiple takes, etc., but it should be something more like this...
One set which is two otherwise identical instruments, the only difference being wood.
Another set of two identical instruments, including wood.
Randomly play the sets for different people and have them answer whether they thought the instruments were made of the same or different wood.
This idea of "can someone blindly listen to an instrument and tell you if it's made of alder, ash, walnut, etc.?" requires not only that the woods sound different, but also that the listener can remember the sound of each so well that they can recall it at a later time. So the first could be true and the second not so, but that doesn't mean maple vs. rosewood doesn't make a difference.
I'm not advocating one view over the other (personally, I believe wood DOES make a difference... each and every component has the potential to affect tone... but not NEARLY the difference that technique, strings, pickups, electronics, effects, amp, and cab make), it just irritates me when I see people tout the idea that if you can't correctly identify a mahogany bass vs. a walnut bass, that that means the woods don't impact the sound. It should be can you correctly detect a difference in tone when there is a difference in wood (regardless of whether or not you can identify the wood).
Thank you OriginalCrash, now we're getting somewhere. You're absolutely right that its about perception as opposed to quantifiable measurement of individual differences in materials. My whole point of the example post comparing the basses I quoted above is that perception and suggestion play an enormous role, much more than the type of wood, or even pickups, electronics, etc. You're also right that the randomization needs to happen to different groups, your experiment resolves some of the unspoken items that I was getting at as well.
One of the major issues about this whole discussion/problem analysis is that people are deluded into believing what they believe. The reality is, everything may be a fabrication when it comes to perception, there is literally no way to know. People being convinced one way or another that their perception is accurate is easily shattered.
Look at eyewitness testimony studies. Take a video of a traffic accident, play it for a dozen people and tell them to watch this video of a birdwatcher. When its over, ask them to describe what happened in the accident. Colours of vehicles, who went where, what the people looked like, etc. Inevitably, you get a dozen different stories with a few details being accurate. Eyewitness testimony is basically garbage, and our perceptions of what things sound like, especially when drawn from memory are by extension, also garbage...
One of the major issues about this whole discussion/problem analysis is that people are deluded into believing what they believe. The reality is, everything may be a fabrication when it comes to perception, there is literally no way to know. People being convinced one way or another that their perception is accurate is easily shattered.
Look at eyewitness testimony studies. Take a video of a traffic accident, play it for a dozen people and tell them to watch this video of a birdwatcher. When its over, ask them to describe what happened in the accident. Colours of vehicles, who went where, what the people looked like, etc. Inevitably, you get a dozen different stories with a few details being accurate. Eyewitness testimony is basically garbage, and our perceptions of what things sound like, especially when drawn from memory are by extension, also garbage...
Hey, by all means, whatever you need to tell yourself in order to feel better, go for it. No one here wants you to feel bad about being wrong...salman said:
Hey, by all means, whatever you need to tell yourself in order to feel better, go for it. No one here wants you to feel bad about being wrong...
You must have missed one of my earlier posts...I am always right
I therefore and hitherto reject all of your arguments
Seriously though, I agree with most of what's been said in the past few quotes...wood does affect tone albeit subtly, how subtly depends on many factors. The basses I construct have very stripped down electronics, passive pickups...usually nordstrand versions of popular basses (J, MM etc...) a switch to control series or parallel and a volume pot- nothing else. Though I am running a little experiment with an on-board tube preamp I am constructing, but I'll save that for another thread. Electronics are going to enhance, degrade or completely replace the the natural tone of the bass (as it sounds unplugged).
One problem with the experiments outlined in these posts is that you're asking the people to listen to instruments and asking them if they are made from different wood or not...the question which should be asked is...do these instruments sound different? Don't even ask which one sounds better...this is subjective.
Well, its kind of moot, as what we're asking in the experimental design is about perception not the differences in wood or sound specifically.
What would also be interesting would be to take a bass, record it, take all the same hardware and neck and put it on a hunk of plywood, record it again and then ask listeners if there is a difference between the tones generated. You'd have to come up with a machine that plucks the strings with measurable consistency in order to not introduce variation in playing style between the two recordings. However, the fact that we have to do that measure of control again pads the argument that the material itself is less important than the subjectively experienced differences due to playing style (among all the other factors outlined) as two recordings may have variation introduced by something as simple as attack... (edit: and in the mind of the player, the variation may be imprinted as difference in materials).
Differences in wood sound are very measurable with the right equipment, you don't need a person at all. If you had a robot string plucker as mentioned earlier, and recording device...frequency patterns can be measured scientifically. The differences in sound frequency may be perceptible or imperceptible to the human ear depending on how different the wood is. Why stop at wood, let's use all different types of materials...
Also, I'm quite certain that this type of research has already been done...I'm going to have to sharpen my google skills.
May the force be with you
Also, I'm quite certain that this type of research has already been done...I'm going to have to sharpen my google skills.
May the force be with you
Here is a report which proves both arguments of course---
This is on a guitar, ash vs alder...I imagine the results may be slightly different for the lower frequencies which a bass guitar makes.
http://www.stormriders.com/guitar/telecaster/guitar_wood.pdf
This is on a guitar, ash vs alder...I imagine the results may be slightly different for the lower frequencies which a bass guitar makes.
http://www.stormriders.com/guitar/telecaster/guitar_wood.pdf
